Dutch, Scotch, Welsh, Irish; using the words, certainly, in no plural sense; and preferring always the line of adjectives, where the gentile noun is different:  as, Arabic, and not Arab; Danish, and not Dane; Swedish, and not Swede.  In this sense, as well as in the former, Webster, Chalmers, and other modern lexicographers, call the words nouns; and the reader will perceive, that the objections offered before do not apply here.  But Johnson, in his two quarto volumes, gives only two words of this sort, English and Latin; and both of these he calls adjectives:  “ENGLISH, adj. Belonging to England; hence English[169] is the language of England.”  The word Latin, however, he makes a noun, when it means a schoolboy’s exercise; for which usage he quotes, the following inaccurate example from Ascham:  “He shall not use the common order in schools for making of Latins.”

OBS. 3.—­Dr. Webster gives us explanations like these:  “CHINESE, n. sing. and plu. A native of China; also the language of China.”—­“JAPANESE, n. A native of Japan; or the language of the inhabitants.”—­“GENOESE, n. pl. the people of Genoa in Italy. Addison.”—­“DANISH, n. The language of the Danes.”—­“IRISH, n. 1.  A native of Ireland. 2.  The language of the Irish; the Hiberno-Celtic.”  According to him, then, it is proper to say, a Chinese, a Japanese, or an Irish; but not, a Genoese, because he will have this word to be plural only!  Again, if with him we call a native of Ireland an Irish, will not more than one be Irishes?[170] If a native of Japan be a Japanese, will not more than one be Japaneses? In short, is it not plain, that the words, Chinese, Japanese, Portuguese, Maltese, Genoese, Milanese, and all others of like formation, should follow one and the same rule?  And if so, what is that rule?  Is it not this;—­that, like English, French, &c., they are always adjectives; except, perhaps, when they denote languages?  There may possibly be some real authority from usage, for calling a native of China a Chinese,—­of Japan a Japanese,—­&c.; as there is also for the regular plurals, Chineses, Japaneses, &c.; but is it, in either case, good and sufficient authority?  The like forms, it is acknowledged, are, on some occasions, mere adjectives; and, in modern usage, we do not find these words inflected, as they were formerly.  Examples:  “The Chinese are by no means a cleanly people, either in person or dress.”—­Balbi’s Geog., p. 415.  “The Japanese excel in working in copper, iron, and steel.”—­Ib., p. 419.  “The Portuguese are of the same origin with the Spaniards.”—­Ib., p. 272.  “By whom the undaunted Tyrolese are led.”—­Wordsworth’s Poems, p. 122.  Again:  “Amongst the Portugueses,